|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
31 Dec 2020, 14:18
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hello everyone!
I am excited to join this community and would appreciate some feedback on my AWA essay. I believe that I am weakest in the Verbal aspects of the GMAT and I would like to improve over the next few months and score a 700+. This is my first attempt at an essay, but I have a thick skin so please be as brutal as necessary. Thank you all in advance for the support!
Cheers!
The following appeared as part of an annual report sent to stockholders by Olympic Foods, a processor of frozen
foods:
“Over time, the costs of processing go down because as organizations learn how to do things better, they become more efficient. In color film processing, for example, the cost of a 3-by-5-inch print fell from 50 cents for five-day service in 1970 to 20 cents for one-day service in 1984. The same principle applies to the processing of food. And since Olympic Foods will soon celebrate its 25th birthday, we can expect that our long experience will enable us to minimize costs and thus maximize profits.”
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The argument present is victim to several lazy assumptions that result in a flawed conclusion. Because this argument fails to make concrete justifications for its comparisons, there is no reason to believe that Olympic foods will be more successful due to its 25 years of learning.
The first major issue with this argument is the assumption that the over-time organizations naturally “learn how to do things better”, and that they are more efficient resultantly. While many organizations may have improved over time, direct action to make improvements may have been required to accomplish this. For example, in the color film processing industry, if organizations had made specific efforts to update technology to mass-produce prints on a large scale, their efficiency could have improved dramatically. This is not the same naturally improving over time by doing the same thing repeatedly. Unless Olympic Foods is capable of showcasing what specific improvements they have made from their years of learning from their industry experience, they are in no position to confidently claim that they will be more efficient.
A second key distinction between the color film industry and the food business is that their internal operations could differ drastically and that improvements made by one may not impact the other in the same way. Where in the previous example the film industry could have become more efficient due to improved technology, Olympic Foods costs could be more dependent on labor. In this situation, while other industries are becoming more efficient with technological progression, Olympic Foods could be hampered by the rising cost of wages in the food labor industry. Thus while their employees are all “[learning] how to do things better”, their increased wages could offset any financial benefits that would have been seen by Olympic Foods.
Lastly, the argument concludes that minimizing internal costs directly results in maximizing profits, but fails to acknowledge the impact of external factors. As with many technological industries, the usage and demand for print technology likely increased exponentially from 1970 to 1984. This would push their film suppliers to improve mass production and lower prices for film processing businesses. The increased sales would also play a major role in the organization’s overall profits. The demand for food over the 25 years of Olympic Food’s lifespan hasn’t increased nearly as much as the color film processing industry. So to assume that they will also maximize their profits without their sales exponentially increasing, or their supply chains significantly dropping their costs is dubious.
In conclusion, because this argument fails to provide justification for their flawed assumptions, their claim that Olympic foods will naturally minimize costs and maximize profits overtime is without basis.
I am excited to join this community and would appreciate some feedback on my AWA essay. I believe that I am weakest in the Verbal aspects of the GMAT and I would like to improve over the next few months and score a 700+. This is my first attempt at an essay, but I have a thick skin so please be as brutal as necessary. Thank you all in advance for the support!
Cheers!
The following appeared as part of an annual report sent to stockholders by Olympic Foods, a processor of frozen
foods:
“Over time, the costs of processing go down because as organizations learn how to do things better, they become more efficient. In color film processing, for example, the cost of a 3-by-5-inch print fell from 50 cents for five-day service in 1970 to 20 cents for one-day service in 1984. The same principle applies to the processing of food. And since Olympic Foods will soon celebrate its 25th birthday, we can expect that our long experience will enable us to minimize costs and thus maximize profits.”
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The argument present is victim to several lazy assumptions that result in a flawed conclusion. Because this argument fails to make concrete justifications for its comparisons, there is no reason to believe that Olympic foods will be more successful due to its 25 years of learning.
The first major issue with this argument is the assumption that the over-time organizations naturally “learn how to do things better”, and that they are more efficient resultantly. While many organizations may have improved over time, direct action to make improvements may have been required to accomplish this. For example, in the color film processing industry, if organizations had made specific efforts to update technology to mass-produce prints on a large scale, their efficiency could have improved dramatically. This is not the same naturally improving over time by doing the same thing repeatedly. Unless Olympic Foods is capable of showcasing what specific improvements they have made from their years of learning from their industry experience, they are in no position to confidently claim that they will be more efficient.
A second key distinction between the color film industry and the food business is that their internal operations could differ drastically and that improvements made by one may not impact the other in the same way. Where in the previous example the film industry could have become more efficient due to improved technology, Olympic Foods costs could be more dependent on labor. In this situation, while other industries are becoming more efficient with technological progression, Olympic Foods could be hampered by the rising cost of wages in the food labor industry. Thus while their employees are all “[learning] how to do things better”, their increased wages could offset any financial benefits that would have been seen by Olympic Foods.
Lastly, the argument concludes that minimizing internal costs directly results in maximizing profits, but fails to acknowledge the impact of external factors. As with many technological industries, the usage and demand for print technology likely increased exponentially from 1970 to 1984. This would push their film suppliers to improve mass production and lower prices for film processing businesses. The increased sales would also play a major role in the organization’s overall profits. The demand for food over the 25 years of Olympic Food’s lifespan hasn’t increased nearly as much as the color film processing industry. So to assume that they will also maximize their profits without their sales exponentially increasing, or their supply chains significantly dropping their costs is dubious.
In conclusion, because this argument fails to provide justification for their flawed assumptions, their claim that Olympic foods will naturally minimize costs and maximize profits overtime is without basis.
Moderators:
188 posts
